ÿWPC£ ;UBJ %Œ’nX¢ 0Pú4J^ 0”f 0Dúw@> ~„ 0J„ 0TÎ 0^" 0l€Æì AQ² 0D 0@G 0h‡ U@ï e/ 0r0 0|¢ 0† 0¤ B4 1uQ D3Æ 0dù D/] BŒ U 6© U *ß B) DC2 AMu#Âÿåîä€Òv~RvÓÐ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óäzz!Þ(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  £ b D  D  D  Ó€ H 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(D3u$¢¢Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ݃Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô É¸·`(ZapfCalligr BTTT2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d "# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)$$$$'ÿÿdxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd3Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ€1ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔó óÌò òÔ€1¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€1XÔÌÌò òCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.Ô€Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€ÂÔÔ€1ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€ÔÔ€XÔ õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔÔ€1ÔThese€four€allegations€were€that€Mr.€Johnson€had€failed€to€object€to€improper€closing€argumentÏby€the€State;€failed€to€object€to€certain€hearsay€testimony;€failed€to€object€to€the€challenged€juryÏinstructions;€and€did€not€raise€the€State's€failure€to€prove€premeditation€and€deliberation.€Ì äÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔÔ€1ÔòòSee€alsoóó€this€Courtððs€earlier€opinion€in€the€direct€appeal€of€this€case,€in€which€this€Court€heldÏthat€"Where€the€issue€raises€the€right€of€an€accused€to€be€proceeded€against€only€by€presentment€orÏindictment,€we€think€the€proceeding€of€the€trial€court€was€a€proper€method€to€insure€the€right€of€theÏaccused€in€this€context€and€to€supply€an€omission€of€a€largely€ministerial€duty."€€òòState€v.€Timothy€EarlÏWatersóó,€C.C.A.€No.€107,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€18,€1990,€at€Jackson)€(citationÏomitted).Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€0ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ôÔÔ€1ÔThe€trial€transcript€does€not€contain€the€jury€instructions.€€Rather,€the€record€contains€a€copy€ofÏthe€typed€charge€from€which,€presumably,€the€trial€court€read.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€0ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€‚oXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€1ÔÙ€ÙßR€453A1-j|°£- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓ  Óà@ àOCTOBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òTIMOTHY€EARL€WATERS,à àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9604„CR„00113ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€W.€FRED€AXLEY,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellee.ò òà àà àà à)à àó ó(Post„conviction)ò òÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òRICHARD€F.€VAUGHNà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌó ó1928€„„€100€N.€Mainà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€Reporterò òÌó óMemphis,€TN€€€38103ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àELLEN€H.€POLLACKó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.à àÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àALANDA€HORNEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Ave.,€Third€Fl.à àÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€€38103ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇœ›Ñ ° ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€after€a€jury€trial€of€first„degree€murder€andÏassault€with€intent€to€commit€first„degree€murder.€€His€convictions€were€affirmed€onÏdirect€appeal.€€He€petitioned€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€at€trial€and€on€appeal€and€due€process€violations€arising€from€the€juryÏinstructions;€improper€closing€argument€by€the€State;€and€the€State's€failure€toÏprovide€exculpatory€evidence.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€court€below€deniedÏrelief.€€The€petitioner€now€appeals,€adding€as€an€issue€that€the€œcourt›€œbelow€erred›€byÏrefusing€to€allow€him€to€be€present€during€his€trial€attorney's€testimony.€€After€aÏreview€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€court€below.ÌÌà àà àà àð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€peti‚tioner€has€theÏburden€of€proving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence.ðð€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furƒthermore,€the€factual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appealÏunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666ÏS.W.2d€473,€475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).Ìà àÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÍassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚selððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÏS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€made€numerous€allegations€against€his€former€lawyer,ÏMr.€William€Johnson,€who€represented€him€at€both€the€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€TheÏcourt€below€found€that€the€petitioner€had€"not€offer[ed]€sufficient€proof"€on€four€ofÏthese€allegations× ƒ6 ××  ×€and€therefore€held€these€issues€waived.€€Because€the€transcript€ofÏthe€trial€was€entered€into€evidence€at€the€hearing,€we€disagree€with€the€court€belowÏthat€the€petitioner€waived€these€issues.€€However,€we€find€this€error€to€have€beenÏharmless€because€the€proof€does€not€demonstrate€that€Mr.€Johnson's€performanceÏfell€below€the€requisite€standard€with€respect€to€these€issues.€€Moreover,€even€if€itÍdid,€the€petitioner€has€not€shown€that€the€outcome€of€the€trial€probably€would€haveÏbeen€different€had€Mr.€Johnson€handled€these€matters€differently.€€Accordingly,€theseÏallegations€are€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAnother€of€the€petitioner's€allegations€against€Mr.€Johnson€is€that€heÏwas€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€raise€pre„trial€a€defect€in€the€indictment€chargingÏthe€petitioner€with€first„degree€murder.€€Specifically,€the€indictment€was€not€signed€byÏthe€grand€jury€foreman.€€Mr.€Johnson€raised€this€issue€at€trial€and€a€hearing€was€had,Ïincluding€testimony€from€the€grand€jury€foreman.€€After€the€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏruled€the€error€to€be€ministerial€in€nature€and€permitted€the€foreman€to€sign€theÏindictment.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€agree€with€the€petitioner€that,€in€a€perfect€world,€this€issueÏshould€have€been€addressed€pre„trial,€we€do€not€see€that€he€suffered€any€prejudiceÏas€a€result€of€the€manner€in€which€it€was€eventually€handled.€€As€recognized€by€ourÏSupreme€Court€in€òòApplewhite€v.€Stateóó,€"the€foreman's€signature€has€come€to€beÏviewed€as€'a€procedural€safeguard€rather€than€a€substantive€requisite€of€anÏindictment,'€such€that€'its€presence€or€absence€does€not€materially€affect€anyÏsubstantial€right€of€the€defendant;€and€.€.€.€neither€assures€to€him€nor€prevents€himÏfrom€having€a€fair€trial.'€"€597€S.W.2d€328,€329€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979)€(citationsÍomitted).€€The€Court€further€cited€with€approval€other€jurisdictions'€holdings€that€proofÏof€an€indictment's€proper€return€in€open€court€serves€the€same€function€as€theÏendorsement,€that€is,€to€identify€and€authenticate€it€and,€therefore,€an€omission€in€theÏendorsement€or€signature€may€be€cured.€€597€S.W.2d€at€330€(citations€omitted).€€InÏthis€case,€the€trial€court€permitted€the€indictment€to€be€signed€and€therefore€theÏpetitioner€suffered€no€harm€from€his€counsel's€failure€to€raise€the€objection€earlier.× ƒ7 ××  ×€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€the€remaining€allegations,€after€considering€both€theÏpetitioner's€testimony€and€that€of€Mr.€Johnson,€the€court€below€found€that,€"[t]heÏconduct€of€William€Johnson€has€not€been€proven€to€be€anything€other€than€anÏattorney's€sound€judgment€of€proper€trial€strategy€and€tactics."€€The€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€this€finding€by€the€court€below.€€Accordingly,€we€find€thisÏissue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà àà à€€The€petitioner€next€contends€that€the€trial€court's€jury€instructions€onÏhis€alibi€defense€and€reasonable€doubt€were€unconstitutional.€€We€have€reviewedÍthe€jury€charge€given× ƒ8 ××  ×€on€alibi€defense,€and€it€is€in€accord€with€the€TennesseeÏPattern€Jury€Instruction€„„€Crim.€42.13.€€This€instruction€was€approved€by€ourÏSupreme€Court€in€òòChristian€v.€Stateóó,€555€S.W.2d€863,€866€(Tenn.€1977).€€We€declineÏthe€petitioner's€invitation€to€find€it€unconstitutional.€€Similarly,€the€trial€court'sÏinstruction€on€reasonable€doubt€was€in€substantial€accord€with€the€TennesseeÏPattern€Jury€Instruction€„„€Crim.€2.03.€€The€petitioner€complains€about€the€use€of€theÏterm€"moral€certainty"€in€this€instruction.€€€However,€our€Supreme€Court€has€upheldÏthe€use€of€this€instruction€in€the€face€of€a€similar€attack.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2dÏ722,€734€(Tenn.€1994).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€the€State€failed€to€make€availableÏcertain€exculpatory€evidence.€€However,€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€hearing€belowÏdemonstrated€that€Mr.€Johnson€was€provided€the€information€at€issue€prior€to€trial.€ÏThis€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€he€was€denied€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€when€the€State€made€improper€remarks€during€closing€argument.€ÏSpecifically,€the€petitioner€complains€in€his€brief€that€the€State€ÌÓÓà àà8 àÌÒ ô ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ ô ÒÒ ° Òdefined€a€witness's€interest€to€tell€the€truth€in€comparison€with€theÏterm€'lawsuit.'€€The€jurors€were€not€trained€in€the€law,€and€the€termÏ'lawsuit'€was€never€defined€or€explained€to€them€in€reference€toÏits€use.€.€.€.€[T]he€jury€could€easily€have€gained€the€clearÏunderstanding€that€they€would€be€sued€for€money€damages€byÏthe€[petitioner]€and€his€family€if€they€were€to€òònotóó€follow€theÏprosecution's€recommendation€to€find€him€guilty€as€theÏprosecution€advised€them€to€do€during€the€closing€arguments.ÌÌÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÌÓÓWe€have€reviewed€the€cited€portion€of€the€State's€closing€argument€and€find€no€meritÏto€the€petitioner's€contention.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€he€was€denied€due€process€at€his€trialÏdue€to€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€alleged€errors.€€However,€he€has€failed€to€prove€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€his€allegation€that€his€"trial€was€tainted€by€severalÏconstitutional€errors."€€€Indeed,€he€has€failed€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€his€trial€was€tainted€by€a€single€constitutional€error.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€complains€that€he€was€not€allowed€to€be€presentÏduring€that€portion€of€the€hearing€below€at€which€Mr.€Johnson€testified.€€Mr.ÏJohnson's€testimony€was€had€approximately€two€months€after€the€petitioner€testified,Ïand€the€court€below€denied€the€petitioner's€motion€to€be€present.€€œThis€Court€has›Ípreviously€held€that€a€post„conviction€hearing€judge€"has€the€discretion€to€take€proofÏby€various€means,€as€long€as€the€petitioner's€right€to€test€the€evidence€is€preserved."€ÏòòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€580€S.W.2d€797,€799€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€In€that€case,€theÏpetitioner€was€not€present€during€the€testimony€of€a€witness.€€œThis€Court›€found€thatÏthe€petitioner's€interests€were€protected€during€his€absence€and€that€his€presenceÏwould€not€have€made€any€difference€in€the€outcome€of€the€hearing.€€òòId.óó€€The€sameÏanalysis€holds€here.€€The€petitioner's€post„conviction€lawyer€was€present€during€Mr.ÏJohnson's€testimony€and€cross„examined€him.€€The€petitioner's€rights€were€thusÏprotected€and€he€has€not€shown€how€his€presence€would€have€made€any€differenceÏin€the€outcome.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€above,€the€judgment€below€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌÔ% € ÔDAVID€G.€HAYES,€Judge